On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 13:02 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Cyril Bur writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 11:31 -0200, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> > > Hi Cyril,
> > >
> > > On 21-11-2017 05:17, Cyril Bur wrote:
> > > > Currently the tm-unavailable test spins for a fixed amount of time in
> >
Cyril Bur writes:
> On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 11:31 -0200, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>> Hi Cyril,
>>
>> On 21-11-2017 05:17, Cyril Bur wrote:
>> > Currently the tm-unavailable test spins for a fixed amount of time in
>> > an attempt to ensure the FPU/VMX/VSX facilities are off. This value was
>> > exper
On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 11:31 -0200, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> Hi Cyril,
>
> On 21-11-2017 05:17, Cyril Bur wrote:
> > Currently the tm-unavailable test spins for a fixed amount of time in
> > an attempt to ensure the FPU/VMX/VSX facilities are off. This value was
> > experimentally tested to be long
Hi Cyril,
On 21-11-2017 05:17, Cyril Bur wrote:
> Currently the tm-unavailable test spins for a fixed amount of time in
> an attempt to ensure the FPU/VMX/VSX facilities are off. This value was
> experimentally tested to be long enough.
>
> Problems may arise if kernel heuristics were to change.
Currently the tm-unavailable test spins for a fixed amount of time in
an attempt to ensure the FPU/VMX/VSX facilities are off. This value was
experimentally tested to be long enough.
Problems may arise if kernel heuristics were to change. This patch
should future proof this test.
Signed-off-by: C
